Search Decisions

Decision Text

NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 12615 11
Original file (12615 11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS
7O1 S. COURTHOUSE ROAD, SUITE 1001
ARLINGTON, VA 22204-2490

 

JR]
Docket No. 12615-11
9 October 2012

 

(J

 

 

This is in reference to your application for correction of your
faval record pursuant to the provisions of title 10 of the United
States Code, section 1552.

A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval
Records, sitting in executive session, considered your
application on 4 October 2012. Your allegations of error and
injustice were reviewed in accordance with administrative
regulations and procedures applicable to the proceedings of
this Board. Documentary material considered by the Board
consisted of your application, together with all material

submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable
statutes, regulations and policies.

After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire
record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was
insufficient to establish the existence of probable material
error or injustice.

You served on active duty in the Navy from 22 January 1986 to
21 October 1987, when you were discharged because of a mixed
personality disorder with anti-social and narcissistic traits.

Although a personality disorder is considered administratively
unfitting for military service, it is not considered a
disability under the laws administered by the Department oF
Defense or the military departments. In the absence of evidence
which demonstrates that you suffered from a mental disorder
which rendered you unfit for duty by reason of physical
disability on 21 October 1987, the Board was unable to recommend
favorable action on your request. Accordingly, your
application has been denied. The names and votes of the members
of the panel will be furnished upon request.

It is regretted that the circumstances of your case are such
that favorable action cannot be taken. You are entitled to have
the Board reconsider its decision upon submission of new and
material evidence or other matter not previously considered by
the Board. Inthis regard, it is important to keep in mind that
a presumption of regularity attaches to all official records.
Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official
naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the
existence of probable material error or injustice.

Sincerely,

TN enna go
ROBERT D. SALMAN

Acting Executive Director

Similar Decisions

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 04187-00

    Original file (04187-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 8 February 2001. On 24 October 1986, the Physical Evaluation Board that you remained unfit for duty, and that your condition was ratable at 10%. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 07406-01

    Original file (07406-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 13 December 2001. demonstrates that your discharge by reason of misconduct was erroneous or unjust, the Board was unable to recommend any corrective action in your case. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 11385-08

    Original file (11385-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 17 June 2009. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record, and applicable statutes, regulations, and policies. Further, the Board concluded that the severity of your diagnosed personality disorder was sufficient to support the assignment of an RE-4...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2011 | 12128 11

    Original file (12128 11.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 October 2012. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an offical naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 03149-02

    Original file (03149-02.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive . Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2002 | 05262-01

    Original file (05262-01.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 14 February 2002. demonstrates that your discharge by reason of misconduct was improper, and establishes that you were unfit to perform your duties by reason of a physical disability which was incurred in or aggravated by your brief period of naval service, the Board was unable to recommend In the absence of evidence which any corrective action in your case. ...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 04265-00

    Original file (04265-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 28 June 2001. On 14 November 1988, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) advised you that it had rated your back condition at 20%, and denied service connection for a psychiatric disorder. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate the existence of probable material error or injustice.

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2008 | 07559-08

    Original file (07559-08.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 25 September 2008. In a letter dated 29 November 1999, a psychiatrist with a Louisiana State University student health center stated that you had an organic mental disorder with depression and a personality disorder, both secondary to a severe head injury you suffered as a teenager. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official naval record, the...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2007 | 04454-07

    Original file (04454-07.rtf) Auto-classification: Denied

    DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVYBOARD FOR CORRECTION OF NAVAL RECORDS2 NAVY ANNEX WASHINGTON DC 20370-5100 JREDocket No. Documentary material considered by the Board consisted of your application, together with all material submitted in support thereof, your naval record and applicable statutes, regulations and policies.After careful and conscientious consideration of the entire record, the Board found that the evidence submitted was insufficient to establish the existence of probable material error...

  • NAVY | BCNR | CY2001 | 03203-00

    Original file (03203-00.pdf) Auto-classification: Denied

    A three-member panel of the Board for Correction of Naval Records, sitting in executive session, considered your application on 7 June 2001. In the absence of evidence which demonstrates that you were unfit for further service by reason of physical disability at the time of your discharge, and that your discharge by reason of misconduct was erroneous or unjust, the Board was unable to recommend any corrective action in your case. Consequently, when applying for a correction of an official...